By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following an initial strike on a suspected drug vessel in the Caribbean on September 2, the US military conducted a follow-up strike after assessing there were survivors. This second attack resulted in the deaths of the remaining crew, bringing the total death toll to 11 and sinking the ship. The administration has since faced scrutiny, as the President announced the strike, but has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors. Legal experts and members of Congress have raised concerns, with some arguing the strikes violate the law of armed conflict by executing individuals who are “hors de combat.” This has led to the UK ceasing intelligence sharing with the US due to concerns over the legality of these actions.
Read the original article here
The US military carried out a second strike killing survivors on a suspected drug boat that had already been attacked, according to reports, and frankly, it’s hard to process the implications. This situation throws a harsh light on the conduct of the military and raises serious questions about the use of force and the rule of law. It’s difficult to avoid the feeling that something has gone terribly wrong.
The central issue is crystal clear: after an initial attack on the vessel, which seemingly disabled it and resulted in casualties, a second strike was ordered to eliminate any survivors. This second strike resulted in the deaths of the remaining crew and the complete destruction of the boat, bringing the death toll to eleven individuals. It immediately raises questions of intent and raises the stakes to war crime levels.
The fact that the initial strike may have left survivors is crucial. The reported directive from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to ensure “no survivors” is particularly troubling. It gives rise to the idea that there was a deliberate, premeditated intent to kill, regardless of the circumstances. That alone should make one pause.
The lack of transparency around these events is another major concern. The attacks were announced by President Trump, but the administration never publicly acknowledged the killing of survivors. This silence, this lack of acknowledging what happened, only fuels suspicion and suggests an effort to obscure the truth. What exactly are they trying to hide?
The context of these strikes, as it is related to the broader campaign against drug trafficking in the Caribbean, is also important. The administration’s focus on stopping alleged drug trafficking networks and the reported acknowledgement of not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before striking creates a very troubling picture. The question becomes, is the penalty for drug smuggling death?
The aftermath, and the implications of this, are profound. The suggestion that these actions could potentially be classified as war crimes isn’t an exaggeration. The intentional targeting of survivors, the apparent disregard for due process, and the potential lack of proportionality in the use of force all point to a disturbing reality.
The comparison to the refusal of Ukraine to retaliate against civilian targets in Russia, even when facing attacks on their own civilian infrastructure, highlights a stark contrast in ethical frameworks. The contrast is something to consider.
The potential for lasting damage to the United States’ international reputation is significant. Rebuilding trust and credibility on the global stage following actions like these will be a monumental task. When the U.S. seems to be playing fast and loose with international law and human life, you can’t help but wonder.
The call for accountability is a natural and necessary response. It would include prosecution of all those involved, from the soldiers who executed the orders to the commanders who issued them, up the chain of command. If these actions are indeed illegal, then the people behind them must be held responsible.
The debate about whether to obey unlawful orders is at the heart of this situation. The suggestion that the military should not obey unlawful orders is very appropriate in this context. These situations create impossible situations for soldiers on the ground, and one can only hope that they are able to make the appropriate decisions when faced with such scenarios.
The lack of evidence of drug seizures is a noteworthy detail. If these military operations are justified by their contribution to the fight against drugs, one would expect to see the proof. The absence of such evidence can only heighten the feeling that something is amiss. It’s hard to ignore that thought.
The notion that this may result in a “no survivors” policy is horrifying. What kind of signal does this send to our allies, our enemies, and the world? It’s hard to imagine, but there may be far-reaching consequences in such a case.
This is a stark reminder of the importance of checks and balances, the rule of law, and the need for ethical conduct in warfare. It is important to remember that these events are not just about the military. They are about all of us and the values we claim to hold dear.